We all know where that expression comes from, yet it is so often misunderstood.
Let us to that particular passage of scripture.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
Jesus gave this in the Sermon on the Mount in a remarkable address captured in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters five through seven. It revolutionised the approach of his followers from an “eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek” philosophy. From this sermon, the philosophy of Christianity was set forth. No more was the approach of “getting even” to be used by his followers.
It was not an easy path to follow; many were there enemies of the Christian movement in those times. Initially the persecution did not threaten the lives of the new believers. At first the punishments were to be ostracised from their closely knit community. But opposition intensified as more and more left the old way. Eventually probable death was the fate of the believer. To be a Christian was perilous in those times.
The society that Jesus lived in was extremely judgmental; the religious leaders of the day were often cruel and unmerciful. They had been locked in a pattern of rigid conduct that had been in place for hundreds of years. Also they were biased and unfair, women (as always) had the “short end of the stick”. To illustrate this point, let’s go back to a moment in the Saviour’s mortal ministry. A woman had been taken in the sordid act of adultery and she was dragged before the Saviour. (Read John Chapter 8 from the beginning)
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The Scribes and Pharisees drag the woman into the Saviour's midst but where is the man, the “partner in crime”? Certainly not at the scene! As usual, the crimes of the man seem to be overlooked but the poor woman is expected to pay the full price. I know we don’t have the complete events recorded here of all the actions of the religious leaders, but I am pretty sure that the penalty for the man was just a slap on the wrist compared to what punishment the woman was to be given. I have been incensed and disgusted when I have seen the media report how some woman guilty of adultery, was killed by stoning but the man gets off, when both have committed the same crime? Many societies guilty of such atrocities, say that the woman is the guilty party because she “tempted” the man, really? Usually a man is so much stronger than the woman.
Back to the case in hand…
The Saviour handles the situation in a masterly manner; he does not look them in the eyes but he just looks on the ground where he is writing on the ground with his finger and says that “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone”, he continues to write. He does not confront them with his eyes, I presume he did not want to enrage them but rather wanted them to look inwards. The accusers of the woman are convicted by their own consciences and leave the scene. Eventually they are all gone. Then the Saviour tells the woman that he also does not condemn her but instructs her to “sin no more”.
We must note here that Jesus Christ is referring to himself when he said “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone”. Jesus is without sin and He was the author of the Mosaic Law, thus he had the full right to have the woman stoned in her sin.
This is the form of judgment that is dangerous, a judgement that leads to a loss of life. It is an extremely serious matter, to judge a person to death? Can we really say that those societies were much worse than our modern day society? Regardless of what one may think, or what one’s stand is on abortion, in those days it was forbidden to abort a baby, whereas today it even seems to be possible to abort at will. I don’t want to get into that whole argument here but in those days, adults faced the death penalty, not unborn babies.
Yet today, the wealthy can escape punishment because of their wealth but the poor man, in the same predicament would be convicted. In South Africa this is painfully apparent in the legal system. Even yesterday in my town of Krugersdorp, the black communities revolted against drugs and prostitution and the apparent lack of interest from the police. Rocks were hurled at police, pitched battles were fought and buildings set on fire. My initial thoughts were, "good! The Police and Nigerian drug-lords are getting it."
The communities say that the Police tolerate crime. So many are guilty of corruption as bribery is a massive problem here, from the very top, it has filtered down through most government structures. The problem was that with vigilante justice, things will always get out of hand, a school was burned down, a police station was set alight and various houses and businesses destroyed by fire. The judgement of the mobs is prone to huge mistakes and xenophobia reared its ugly head again, and foreigners are targeted. When at home last night (22 Jan 2018), we found out that a home of a decent law abiding man from West Africa was also burned to the ground. He and many others who also lived there, are now homeless, even a nine-month old baby is without shelter. Luckily, he is part of our religious community and we got to hear about their desperate plight, so we could clean out a lot of blankets, sheets, pillows etc. Accommodation and food were also provided. Wrong judgments were made and victims suffer. A frustrated community allowed their frustrations with crooked and inept police to boil over. The irony is that their protest against crime turned them into criminals also!
Yet we must judge! We judge to select products, we judge to choose a partner, we judge where to educate ourselves and for those of us with children, where they will attend school, even driving a car or playing sport requires judgment. We have to judge, and judge all the time… For example, if we as parents know of a pedophile working at a primary school, would we send our children there? If we see a bad pattern of behaviour developing with a child, surely we would do something? We use it in politics, we judge the candidates, we see their past record of service and we judge who we will vote for. Is this not judgment?
How can this be wrong? How can we know if judgment is wrong or right? When should we use it or not use it? I think this is a dilemma we all face.
Jesus gave us a reason why he could judge righteously and we cannot. He can see the “heart” of a person, he does not use external factors to judge.
However, I believe the key for us lies in understanding how he dealt with the mob who had the adulterous woman. The mob was prepared to kill the woman. This would stop all future opportunities for the poor woman to repent and change her ways. The “non-judgment” of Jesus allowed the woman an opportunity to change her life for the better. Jesus did not condone the sin in any way, he still loved the sinner. Why?
So when Jesus judged, he used kindness, patience and love for the sincerely repentant. He was stern with the unrepentant and the hypocrites, but even here, his judgment was issued with love and best intentions, even for his enemies.
Bad judgment is when we “write” a person off, and we never try to help them improve. This is the kind of judgment that persecuted so many, particularly in the times of Jesus, when the Scribes and Pharisees should have helped so many sinners to repent and improve their lives.
A fine example of the fruits of righteous judgement is Matthew, the author of the one gospel in the New Testament. Matthew (known as Levi), was a dishonest publican, a man appointed to collect tax for the Romans. Yet he changed his ways and became one of the close disciples of Jesus, a righteous man. He took the opportunity to change his life around; he was given a chance to do so.
We do judge, and we must every day, but don’t judge unkindly and don’t let us tolerate our own sins but exercise exacting judgment on the conduct of other people’s lives.
Unrighteous judgment rejects, whereas righteous judgment loves, and includes others in our circle.
Love brings in, hate pushes out.